San Francisco should arm police with stun guns

San Francisco Chronicle

June 21, 2017Updated: June 22, 2017 6:30am

Photo: Matthew Brown, Hearst Connecticut Media

A Stamford Police Officer holds a Taser X26 Stun Gun on April 1, 2016. Blacks and Hispanics are shot with stun guns more often in Connecticut, while whites are given the benefit of a warning far more often, a Hearst review of state data from 2015 shows. Stamford police, however, only shot three people with a stun gun last year.

A Stamford Police Officer holds a Taser X26 Stun Gun on April 1,...

Police tactics, training and tools are all changing. Why, then, is San Francisco so averse to adding stun guns to its arsenal as an alternative to lethal force? The Police Commission this week will begin studying the devices amid swirling debate.

There are pro and con arguments, but the commission should not lose sight of the bottom line: In situations where de-escalation and other methods have failed, and a threat is imminent, officers should have one more last resort to shooting to kill. Law enforcement has a duty to update the weapons and crime-fighting tools it uses while meeting the public’s concerns about safety and community respect.

Tasers are not without risk, but they are essential when batons, pepper spray or hands-on encounters may not work.

More on Stun Guns

The perils and limitations should be acknowledged. The devices only work at close quarters. The shock to the body can be life-threatening if the suspect has certain medical conditions, while in other cases the dart-like electrodes don’t have much effect. They should be used judiciously, and only after thorough training.

San Francisco has refused Tasers in the past despite support from department brass and the police union. That rejection has contributed to a string of fatal cop shootings that might not have happened if stun guns were available.

That’s a powerful argument for Tasers. They can save lives and protect both officers and residents in dangerous encounters.